I have a new report coming
out that addresses two key reforms that I have
written about in the past. Below is an advanced look at the "key facts"
from my new report.

Provisions
in the Senate budget addressing regulatory reform have drawn attention to two
necessary changes to existing law:

State agencies should not be
allowed to issue regulations that exceed federal requirements.

That does not mean that North Carolina would not be able to exceed federal
requirements.

The question is whether unelected and unaccountable state bureaucrats or
political appointees should be the ones deciding whether the state should
exceed federal standards, rather than leaving such decisions to elected
lawmakers.

As a matter of good government, on issues of such magnitude that can kill jobs
and make the state less competitive with its neighbors, the legislature, which
is the lawmaking body of the state, should decide whether North Carolina should
impose these costs on its citizens.

Cost-benefit analysis should be
required for all agencies.

The federal government has required a form of cost-benefit analysis of
regulations for nearly 40 years.

Governor Bev Perdue, in her 2010 executive order on regulatory reform, required
cost-benefit analysis for agencies under her oversight.

The legislature should codify in statutes detailed cost-benefit analysis for
all agencies.

North Carolina is a very unfriendly state when it comes to
regulatory reform. These two changes would be a start, but there's still a long
way to go.